Construction informatization management method and system

Abstract

The invention provides a construction informatization management method and system, relates to the technical field of informatization management, and is characterized in that an independent work point is used as a unified space and management unit, and static management information in a building information model and project planning data is converted into static management information; and integrating and associating with real-time dynamic data from heterogeneous systems of personnel, equipment, environment, video monitoring and the like, and automatically judging and visually displaying the comprehensive execution state of each independent work site based on a preset rule. The core step of the method is that a construction site is finely divided into independent work points with independent working procedures and management responsibility, and dynamic and static data deep fusion and state evaluation are carried out by taking the independent work points as basic units, so that the problems of information islands and fuzzy responsibility in traditional construction management are effectively solved. And a real-time, transparent and traceable global command view is provided for project managers, so that the refined and intelligent management level of the construction process is remarkably improved.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of information management, in particular to a construction information management method and system. BACKGROUND

[0002] In large and complex engineering construction projects, such as subway stations, commercial complexes, and cross-river bridges, the construction site usually has characteristics such as large scale, staggered construction procedures, scattered work surfaces, and numerous participants. The traditional construction management mode highly depends on manual inspection, paper records, and scattered regular communication by project management personnel, resulting in delayed and distorted information transmission. The safety, quality, and progress status of a construction site is like a "black box", making it difficult for management to accurately grasp the real execution situation of each specific area in real time, and only passive responses can be made after problems are exposed, resulting in low management efficiency and insufficient risk control capability.

[0003] With the development of information technology, building information modeling (BIM) provides a visual digital platform for engineering projects, and various information systems (such as personnel positioning, environmental monitoring, and video monitoring) are gradually applied to construction sites, generating a large amount of dynamic data. However, these systems are often independent of each other, forming information silos. BIM models mainly carry static geometric and attribute information, while dynamic management systems lack a unified spatial carrier, resulting in ineffective association between data.

[0004] Existing technologies attempt to solve this problem by simply layering or listing, but there are fundamental technical bottlenecks. First, there is a lack of a unified and intelligent spatial management unit to integrate dynamic and static information, resulting in rough management details and inability to assign responsibilities to specific spaces. Second, the integration of multi-source heterogeneous data is superficial and does not involve deep association and logical judgment based on spatial location and business rules, making it impossible to convert scattered data into meaningful work point status. Moreover, the information display method is often fragmented and disjointed, failing to achieve centralized, dynamic, and visual presentation centered on management units, resulting in insufficient decision support.

[0005] The above information disclosed in the background section is only used to enhance the understanding of the background of the present disclosure, and therefore it can include information that does not constitute prior art known to those of ordinary skill in the art. SUMMARY

[0006] The purpose of the present application is to provide an optimized configuration method and device for a magnetic resistance type dynamic voltage restorer to solve the problems raised in the background.

[0007] To achieve the above purpose, the present application provides the following technical solutions: A construction information management method, the specific steps comprising: Step 1: Based on project planning data and building information model, the construction site is divided into multiple management work points, and each management work point is associated with its corresponding static management information; the management work point at least includes an independent work point; Step 2: Real-time receiving dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems, the dynamic management data at least includes spatial location information; Step 3: Taking the independent work point as the unified space and management unit, the dynamic management data and static management information are integrated and associated; based on the preset rule, the comprehensive execution state of each independent work point is judged; Step 4: Generating visual independent work point execution state information, in which each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution state, and the static management information and dynamic management data associated with the independent work point are displayed.

[0008] Further, the division into multiple management work points specifically includes: The management work point includes an independent work point and a comprehensive work point; based on the space structure unit in the building information model and the construction flow section division scheme in the project planning data, the area with independent construction process and independent management responsibility boundary is determined as an independent work point; the area which provides public services for multiple independent work points or does not have independent construction process itself is determined as a comprehensive work point; The independent work point at least includes one of the following types: linear distribution work point, regional distribution work point, key installation work point and auxiliary area work point; The judgment basis of the independent construction process is that the construction activity of the independent work point is taken as an independent work plan unit in the project progress plan, has a clear process handover node, and its construction resource configuration and scheduling are independent of other areas; The judgment basis of the independent management responsibility boundary is that the unique person responsible for the safety, quality and progress of the area is clearly specified in the responsibility matrix of the project management organization; Wherein, one independent work point corresponds to one construction task unit, and the construction task unit at least includes a foundation pit support section, a main structure pouring section and a pipeline installation corridor; The comprehensive work point corresponds to a public service or auxiliary operation unit, which at least includes a centralized concrete mixing station, a temporary power distribution center and a construction main passage; The static management information at least includes a grid responsibility matrix, a work point risk spectrum and a quality control key point list, and the static management information is associated with the independent work point one by one; the grid responsibility matrix includes the design, construction, supervision and safety responsible person of the independent work point associated therewith; the quality control key point list includes the key process and index that must be checked and accepted in the construction process of the independent work point associated therewith; The construction site risk spectrum is a predefined quantitative risk list based on the construction technology, geological conditions and surrounding environment of the independent construction site associated therewith; the construction site risk spectrum quantifies the risk by calculating the comprehensive risk value of the independent construction site, and the specific logic is as follows: all preset risk events are analyzed to determine the severity level and global weight after the occurrence of each risk event, and the probability of occurrence of each risk event in the current construction stage of each independent construction site is determined according to the expert scoring method; the product of the probability of occurrence, the severity level and the global weight of each risk event is calculated to represent the risk value of the corresponding risk event, and the risk values of all risk events occurring in the current construction stage of each independent construction site are counted, and the sum thereof is taken as the comprehensive risk value of the independent construction site in the current construction stage; The construction site risk spectrum is dynamic, and the comprehensive risk value changes with the construction stage of the independent construction site. For all independent construction sites, the corresponding risk spectrum is predefined in different construction stages and is associated with the construction simulation progress of the independent construction site in the building information model. When the actual progress of the independent construction site enters the corresponding construction stage, the construction site risk spectrum corresponding to the construction stage is automatically activated.

[0009] Further, the dynamic management data further includes at least personnel dynamic data, equipment dynamic data, environment dynamic data and video dynamic data; The heterogeneous external information system includes a personnel positioning system, an equipment monitoring system, an environment monitoring system and a video monitoring system; The spatial position information in the dynamic management data is embodied in at least one of the following data: the personnel dynamic data comes from the personnel positioning system, and the data at least includes a unique ID of the personnel, a real-time three-dimensional coordinate and a timestamp; the equipment dynamic data comes from the equipment monitoring system, and the data at least includes a unique ID of the equipment, an equipment state, a real-time three-dimensional coordinate and a timestamp, and the equipment state includes running, idle and failure; the environment dynamic data comes from the environment monitoring system, and the data at least includes dust concentration, noise decibel value, timestamp and sensor position coordinate; the video dynamic data comes from the video monitoring system, and the data is a real-time video stream URL address of a specified monitoring point and its spatial coverage coordinate; After accessing the dynamic management data, spatial position unification processing is performed, specifically including: the dynamic management data from different coordinate systems is uniformly mapped to a global coordinate system consistent with the building information model through a coordinate transformation function; for any data point, the uniformized coordinate is obtained by multiplying the coordinate of the data point in the original local coordinate system by a preset affine transformation matrix; the preset affine transformation matrix is calculated by at least three known common control points in the global coordinate system and the local coordinate system; after unification, the spatial correlation between the dynamic data and the independent construction site is realized by judging whether the global coordinate of the data point is located within the boundary of a certain independent construction site; The implementation of dynamic data and independent work point spatial association includes at least one of the following association logics: Personnel and independent work point association: when the unified personnel coordinates remain within the boundary of an independent work point for more than a preset time threshold, it is determined that the personnel has entered the independent work point; Device and independent work point association: when the unified device coordinates are within the boundary of an independent work point and the device state is running, it is determined that the device is operating in the independent work point; Environment and independent work point association: when the environment sensor data in an independent work point exceeds a preset standard threshold, it is determined that the independent work point has an environment exceeding standard event, and a warning is generated.

[0010] Further, the judgment of the comprehensive execution state of each independent work point specifically includes: A dynamic data set is created for each independent work point, which aggregates all dynamic management data within its boundary through spatial matching algorithm; The integration and association at least includes one of the following: Risk and personnel association: the personnel dynamic data entering the independent work point is associated with the predefined risk events in the work point risk spectrum of the independent work point; Progress and resource association: the actual progress obtained in the independent work point is compared with the planned progress of the independent work point, and the devices and personnel currently in the independent work point are associated to form a complete data table for analyzing progress performance; the complete data table includes the independent work point devices, personnel, planned progress and actual progress; Safety and hidden danger association: real-time access and association of reported and unclosed safety hidden danger events in the independent work point are used to evaluate the safety state of the independent work point; The comprehensive execution state is composed of the comprehensive evaluation indexes of safety state, progress state and quality state, which is represented by calculating the comprehensive execution state index, and the specific calculation logic is: For each independent work point, the safety state score is determined according to the comprehensive risk value of the work point risk spectrum of the independent work point and the number of safety hidden danger events, the progress state score is determined according to the deviation of the actual progress and the planned progress of the independent work point, and the quality state score is determined according to the quality defect closure rate of the independent work point; according to each reported safety hidden danger event, only when the safety hidden danger event has been completely rectified and passed the review, its state is marked as closed, and the quality defect closure rate is the ratio of the number of safety hidden danger events with closed state to the total number of safety hidden danger events found in the current construction phase of the independent work point; The comprehensive execution status index of the independent work site is obtained by weighting and summing the safety status score, schedule status score and quality status score according to the preset importance coefficient. The preset rule is a level judgment rule. When the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is not lower than the first threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a normal state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the first threshold but not lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a warning state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in an abnormal state.

[0011] Furthermore, the logic for calculating the safety status score is as follows: The negative impact on safety status is characterized by the product of the number of unclosed safety hazard events in an independent work site and a preset safety penalty coefficient. The sum of this product, the comprehensive risk value of the independent work site, and 1 is calculated, and the reciprocal of the sum is designated as the safety status score of the independent work site. The specific logic for calculating the progress status score is as follows: The schedule deviation rate is calculated to determine the value of the schedule status score. The specific calculation logic is as follows: calculate the difference between the actual completed work volume of an independent work site and the planned completed work volume of that independent work site. The ratio of this difference to the planned completed work volume of that independent work site is the schedule deviation rate. Expressed as a formula: ; in, Let be the schedule deviation rate for the i-th independent work site. This represents the actual amount of work completed at the i-th independent work site. This represents the planned amount of work to be completed at the i-th work site; A baseline full score, a baseline low score, and a tolerance range are set for the progress status score; the minimum value of the tolerance range is a preset lag tolerance rate, and the maximum value is an advance tolerance rate; when the progress deviation rate is within the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline full score, and when the progress deviation rate is outside the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline low score. The logic for calculating the quality status score is as follows: Each safety hazard reported at the independent work site is quantified and assigned a value according to its severity level, so as to calculate the sum of the safety hazard values ​​after quantification of all safety hazard events; calculate the highest estimated total severity value, that is, assuming that all safety hazard events are of the highest severity level, the product of the total number of safety hazard events and the value assigned to the highest severity level is the highest total hazard value; Calculate the ratio of the sum of safety hazard values ​​to the highest total hazard value, and use the difference between 1 and this ratio to characterize the severity penalty factor; The quality status score for each independent work site is the product of the quality defect closure rate and the severity penalty factor for that independent work site.

[0012] Furthermore, generating the visualized independent work point execution status information specifically includes: On the visualization interface, a dynamic visual code is assigned to the boundary area of ​​each independent work point; the dynamic visual code includes at least color coding and animation coding; the color coding is based on the comprehensive execution status index value of the independent work point, mapped to a continuous color spectrum for filling, the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in a normal state is filled with green, the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in a warning state is filled with yellow, and the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in an abnormal state is filled with red; the animation coding adopts the form of red flashing animation, which is triggered when the independent work point is judged to be in an abnormal state; The execution status information refers to the information panel that is triggered and displayed when an independent work point is clicked. This information panel includes: identity block, status block, responsibility block, risk block, and resource block. The identity block includes the site number and the current construction phase; The status block includes the safety status score, schedule status score, quality status score, and overall execution status index for that individual work site; The responsibility block is the grid responsibility matrix in static management information; Risk blocks are the risk events and their corresponding risk values ​​in the risk spectrum of work sites in static management information; The resource blocks include personnel dynamic data and equipment dynamic data; The dynamic visual encoding of independent work sites and all data in the information panel of the visualization interface are dynamically refreshed at a fixed cycle of no more than 5 minutes; at the same time, the data in the information panel of each independent work site is recorded by time to form time series data, so as to trace back all data of the independent work site at any point in history.

[0013] The present invention also provides a construction information management system, which is used to implement the above-mentioned construction information management method, comprising: The work site gridding and static data processing module is used to divide the construction site into multiple management work sites based on project planning data and building information model, and associate each management work site with its corresponding static management information; the management work sites include at least independent work sites; A multi-source heterogeneous data fusion access module is used to receive dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems in real time, wherein the dynamic management data includes at least spatial location information. The work site status diagnosis and assessment module is used to integrate and correlate dynamic management data and static management information, taking independent work sites as unified spatial and management units; and to judge the overall execution status of each independent work site based on preset rules. The visualization module is used to generate visualized independent work point execution status information. In the visualized independent work point execution status information, each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution status, and relevant data from static management information and dynamic management data of the independent work point are displayed centrally.

[0014] The technical effects and advantages provided by the present invention in the above technical solution are as follows: This invention effectively solves the problems of information lag and fragmentation in traditional construction management, constructing a new proactive management model for large-scale construction sites that is transparent, refined, and intelligent. By creating a unified space and management unit for each independent work site, this invention deeply integrates and correlates static planning information in the BIM model with dynamic data from heterogeneous systems such as personnel, equipment, and environment, thereby breaking down information independence. This enables project management to shift from the past extensive overall control to precise perception of the safety, progress, and quality status of each specific work site. Managers no longer need to painstakingly piece together information from multiple scattered systems, but can intuitively see the comprehensive execution status of each work site, coded with colors such as red, yellow, and green, on a unified visual interface, and obtain all the underlying dynamic and static data support with one click. This achieves a fundamental shift from post-event remediation to in-event early warning and pre-event control, greatly improving the efficiency and scientific nature of management decisions. Attached Figure Description

[0015] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall method flow of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the system structure of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0016] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments.

[0017] It should be noted that, unless otherwise defined, the technical or scientific terms used in this invention should have the ordinary meaning understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains. The terms "first," "second," and similar terms used in this invention do not indicate any order, quantity, or importance, but are merely used to distinguish different components. Terms such as "comprising" or "including" mean that the element or object preceding the word encompasses the elements or objects listed following the word and their equivalents, without excluding other elements or objects. Terms such as "connected" or "linked" are not limited to physical or mechanical connections, but can include electrical connections, whether direct or indirect. Terms such as "upper," "lower," "left," and "right" are used only to indicate relative positional relationships; when the absolute position of the described object changes, the relative positional relationship may also change accordingly.

[0018] Example: Please see Figure 1 The present invention provides a technical solution: A construction information management method, comprising the following steps: Step 1: Based on project planning data and building information model, divide the construction site into multiple management work points and associate each management work point with its corresponding static management information; the management work points include at least independent work points.

[0019] In this embodiment, the division into multiple management work points specifically includes: Based on project planning data and building information modeling, the construction site is divided into multiple management work points. This division is not a simple physical partition, but a comprehensive and intelligent method that integrates spatial structure, construction process, and organizational management.

[0020] The delineation is based on two criteria: Building Information Modeling (BIM) and project planning data. The BIM provides precise three-dimensional spatial structure and component information of the construction site, serving as the geometric basis for defining the spatial boundaries of work sites. For example, preliminary delineation can be made based on natural boundaries such as floors, structural zones, and fire compartments in the BIM model. Project planning data provides logical information about the construction process, especially the delineation scheme for construction flow sections. This scheme defines the temporal and spatial sequence of construction, and is crucial to ensuring that the delineated work sites conform to the actual construction logic.

[0021] Before partitioning, a consistency check and integration process must be performed on the BIM model and project planning data. For example, by checking whether the attributes of the BIM model (such as construction phase and section number) match the WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) nodes in the project planning data, it can be ensured that spatial information and schedule information are correctly correlated. If inconsistencies are found, the system will issue an alert to prompt management personnel to make corrections.

[0022] The delineation process can be manual, semi-automatic, or fully automatic. For example, based on manual delineation, managers can directly draw the boundaries of work points on the BIM model view, referring to the construction flow plan. For example, based on semi-automatic or fully automatic delineation, the system can have a built-in delineation rule engine. For example, by identifying geometric shapes with specific attributes in the BIM model (such as component types like post-cast strips or construction joints), or parsing the spatial extent descriptions of task items in the schedule, the system can automatically generate initial work point boundaries, which can then be reviewed and fine-tuned by managers.

[0023] The management work sites are divided into two basic types: independent work sites and integrated work sites.

[0024] Based on the spatial structural units in the Building Information Model (BIM) and the construction flow segment division scheme in the project planning data, areas with independent construction procedures and independent management responsibility boundaries are identified as independent work points. An independent construction procedure refers to the construction activities in this area as an independent work plan unit within the project's fourth or fifth level schedule. It has clearly defined handover points (e.g., the concrete pouring of a certain section of the foundation slab can only proceed after the reinforcement binding of that section is completed and accepted), and the allocation and scheduling of its construction resources (such as rebar teams, formwork, and concrete) are independent of other areas. For example, in the construction of a subway tunnel, the installation of each segment installation ring is an independent procedure and can be considered a linearly distributed work point. An independent management responsibility boundary refers to the clear designation of a single person responsible for safety, quality, and schedule for this area within the project management organization's responsibility matrix (such as the RACI matrix). This means that any problems arising in this area can be directly traced back to a specific individual or team.

[0025] Each independent work site corresponds to a construction task unit, which includes at least a foundation pit support section, a main structure pouring section, and a pipeline installation corridor.

[0026] For example, independent work sites include linearly distributed work sites, regionally distributed work sites, critical facility work sites, and ancillary regional work sites. Linearly distributed work sites include pipeline installation corridors and tunnel excavation faces. Regionally distributed work sites include a fire compartment on a specific floor of a building, or the floor slab pouring area of ​​a standard floor. Critical facility work sites include elevator shafts, core tubes, and large equipment foundations. Ancillary regional work sites include a separate green area and a short section of perimeter wall.

[0027] Integrated work sites provide public services to multiple independent work sites, or areas that do not have independent construction procedures themselves. They are used to manage shared resources and access routes that do not directly produce the physical structure of the project but are crucial to all independent work sites. Monitoring integrated work sites helps ensure the smooth operation of the entire project's lifeline. For example, a centralized concrete mixing plant serves multiple pouring sections of independent work sites. A temporary power distribution center supplies power to the entire construction area. Main construction access roads are the essential routes for personnel, equipment, and materials to and from each independent work site.

[0028] Associate each management work site (especially independent work sites) with its corresponding static management information. This information is a predefined, relatively stable management knowledge base that is strongly related to the work site.

[0029] The static management information includes at least a grid responsibility matrix, a work site risk spectrum, and a list of key quality control points, and the static management information is associated with each independent work site.

[0030] The grid responsibility matrix clearly lists the design manager, construction manager, supervision manager, and safety manager associated with each work site. This matrix is ​​typically stored in a table format in the system database and linked to the work site ID as a primary key. During the initialization phase, personnel information and their responsibilities are extracted from project organizational structure data (such as OA systems or project management software). Based on the mapping relationship between work sites and the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), an initial grid responsibility matrix is ​​automatically or semi-automatically generated, and then confirmed by the project manager.

[0031] The critical quality control checklist lists the key procedures and indicators that must be inspected and accepted during the construction process at each work site. For example, for the main structure pouring section, the checklist might include: reinforcement cover thickness, formwork verticality, and concrete slump. This checklist is primarily derived from construction drawings, construction specifications, and quality acceptance standards (such as the GB 50300 series). The system can establish a standardized critical quality point library and then automatically match recommended checklists based on the type of work site (such as pouring section, support section), which are then supplemented and confirmed by quality engineers.

[0032] The site risk spectrum is the most complex and intelligent part of the static information; it is a dynamic and quantifiable risk knowledge base. It is a predefined, quantified risk list based on the construction technology, geological conditions, and surrounding environment of each associated independent work site. The site risk spectrum quantifies risk by calculating the comprehensive risk value of each independent work site. Specifically, it analyzes all preset risk events, determines the severity level and global weight of each risk event, and determines the probability of each risk event occurring at each independent work site in the current construction stage based on expert scoring. It calculates the product of the probability, severity level, and global weight of each risk event to represent its risk value, and statistically analyzes the risk values ​​of all types of risk events occurring at each independent work site in the current construction stage, summing these values ​​as the comprehensive risk value of that independent work site in the current construction stage. The risk spectrum of the work site is quantified using the following formula: ; in, This represents the overall risk value of the i-th independent work site at the current construction stage. This represents the probability of risk event j occurring at the i-th independent work site during the current construction phase. Its value is dynamically determined based on historical statistical data, expert scoring, or sensor monitoring data. i is the index of the independent work site. This represents the total number of risk event types identified at the i-th independent work site during the current construction phase, where j represents the index of the risk event type; for example, if the risk event is a foundation pit collapse, a fall from height, or an electric shock, then the value of n for this independent work site is 3. This represents the severity level of risk event j at the current construction stage for the i-th independent work site, quantified using a scale of 1 to 5. This represents the global weight of risk event j, used to distinguish the importance of different types of risks in the comprehensive assessment, and satisfies the following conditions: .

[0033] Methods for determining the probability of a risk event, such as the expert scoring method (Delphi method), are the primary approach when initial values ​​are available or data is scarce. Specifically, a panel of experts, including the project manager, safety engineer, and experienced foremen, works independently to score the probability of a specific risk event (such as foundation pit collapse) occurring during a particular construction phase (e.g., between 0.1 and 1.0). After several rounds of feedback and adjustments, the final probability is calculated as the average or weighted average. The initial value can be determined, for example, using historical statistical data; historical data can be collected after the system has been running for a period of time. For example, the number of times a foundation pit collapse risk event actually occurred in the past 10 similar foundation pit excavation sites can be counted, and then divided by the total number of opportunities to dynamically update the value. This makes risk assessments increasingly accurate as the project progresses. For example, risk can be dynamically determined using sensor monitoring data; for some environmental risks, It can be designed as a function related to sensor readings. For example, the probability of falling from a height. Under strong wind conditions, the probability value can be positively correlated with the real-time reading of the wind speed sensor. When the wind speed exceeds a certain threshold, the system automatically increases the probability value.

[0034] The method for determining the severity level of a risk event involves a quantitative assignment using levels 1 to 5. The assignment criteria must be clearly defined in advance in the company's safety management system documents. For example: Level 5 (Catastrophic): May result in death or system failure. Level 4 (Serious): May result in serious injury or damage to major systems. Level 3 (Moderate): May result in minor injury or damage to minor systems. Level 2 (Slight): May require medical treatment, no equipment damage. Level 1 (Negligible): Will not cause injury or equipment damage. This tiered quantification allows risks of different natures (such as safety accident risks and quality risks) to be compared and superimposed on the same dimension.

[0035] Global risk event weights are used to differentiate the importance of different types of risks in a comprehensive assessment. They are typically determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The specific steps are as follows: experts are invited to conduct pairwise comparisons of various risks (such as safety accident risks, quality risks, and schedule risks) to determine their relative importance, constructing a judgment matrix. Then, the weight of each risk is obtained by calculating the eigenvectors of the matrix. and satisfy For example, in a project that places particular emphasis on safety, safety risks such as collapse and fire might be given a higher weight (e.g., 0.4), while quality risks such as cosmetic defects might be given a lower weight (e.g., 0.1). The introduction of weights allows the risk assessment results to reflect the specific values ​​and management priorities of the project management team.

[0036] The risk spectrum of the work site is dynamic, and its comprehensive risk value changes with the construction stage of the independent work site. For all independent work sites, a corresponding risk spectrum is predefined for different construction stages and is associated with the construction simulation progress of the independent work site in the building information model. When the actual progress of the independent work site enters the corresponding construction stage, the risk spectrum of the work site corresponding to the construction stage is automatically activated.

[0037] The system predefines the construction phase sequence of its lifecycle for each independent work site (e.g., earthwork excavation - foundation construction - main structure, etc.). Each phase is associated with a specific set of... , Parameters. When the actual progress of a work site is updated and it enters a new stage, the system automatically loads the risk spectrum parameters corresponding to the new stage from the knowledge base, realizing automatic switching of the risk model. For example, after a work site moves from the rebar tying stage to the concrete pouring stage, the dominant risk in its risk spectrum will change from rebar displacement to formwork bursting and cold joints, and the corresponding probability and severity values ​​will change.

[0038] Step 2: Receive dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems in real time. The dynamic management data includes at least spatial location information.

[0039] In this embodiment, the dynamic management data also includes at least personnel dynamic data, equipment dynamic data, environmental dynamic data, and video dynamic data; The spatial location information in the dynamic management data is specifically embodied in at least one of the following data: The personnel dynamic data comes from a personnel positioning system, and the data includes at least a unique personnel ID, real-time three-dimensional coordinates, and a timestamp. The unique personnel ID may be a number or a unique two-digit code, which, in addition to uniquely identifying personnel, also shows information such as the personnel category and their work group. The personnel category includes at least ordinary workers and special workers; the work group information includes, for example, a rock-socketed pile work group. The equipment dynamic data comes from an equipment monitoring system, and the data includes at least a unique equipment ID, equipment status, real-time three-dimensional coordinates, and a timestamp. The equipment status includes running, idle, and faulty. The environmental dynamic data comes from an environmental monitoring system, and the data includes at least dust concentration, noise decibel value, timestamp, and sensor location coordinates. The video dynamic data comes from a video surveillance system, and the data is the real-time video stream URL address of a specified monitoring point and its spatial coverage coordinates.

[0040] The heterogeneous external information systems include, but are not limited to, personnel positioning systems, equipment monitoring systems, environmental monitoring systems, and video surveillance systems. The heterogeneity of these systems is mainly reflected in the following aspects: Heterogeneous communication protocols: Different systems may use different data transmission protocols. For example, a personnel positioning system may use the MQTT protocol for real-time data push, an equipment monitoring system may collect data from a PLC via the Modbus TCP protocol, and a video surveillance system may provide video streams via the RTSP / Onvif protocol.

[0041] Data format heterogeneity: The data structures output by different systems are different. For example, personnel location data may be in JSON format, containing {"id":"001","x":123.45,"y":67.89,"z":5.60,"timestamp":1621234567890}; while equipment monitoring data may be in XML format; environmental monitoring data may be provided through an OPC UA server.

[0042] Data model heterogeneity: The description of the same concept may differ. For example, for the time field, some systems use Unix timestamps, while others use formatted date and time strings.

[0043] After receiving the raw data stream, a series of preprocessing operations are required to ensure data quality and availability. The system configures a dedicated parsing adapter for each data source to extract structured fields (such as ID, coordinates, status, timestamps, etc.) from the raw messages or data stream. Subsequently, data cleaning is performed, including outlier filtering; for example, identifying and removing coordinate values ​​that clearly exceed the construction site's boundaries (e.g., x-coordinate values ​​exceeding the total site length) or sensor readings that do not conform to physical laws (e.g., negative noise decibel values). This is typically achieved by setting reasonable numerical range thresholds. Data completion; for data records missing key fields (such as timestamps) due to transmission loss, the system attempts to interpolate and complete the data based on preceding and following data packets. If completion fails, the data is marked as invalid and discarded.

[0044] Spatial location information in dynamic management data is specifically manifested as real-time 3D coordinates of personnel / equipment, derived from positioning technologies such as UWB, Bluetooth beacons, or GPS. It also includes the location coordinates of environmental sensors, whose static locations are determined during sensor deployment. Finally, it includes the spatial coverage coordinates of video surveillance points, typically defined as a set of polygon vertex coordinates, defining the camera's field of view.

[0045] Different external systems may use different local coordinate systems (e.g., a coordinate system with a tower crane as the origin, or a coordinate system with the southeast corner of the site as the origin), while BIM models typically use a global coordinate system (such as a city coordinate system). These must be unified for accurate spatial analysis. After accessing the dynamic management data, spatial location unification processing is performed, which is a key technical step in achieving multi-source data fusion and spatial correlation.

[0046] The unification method specifically includes: applying affine transformations to dynamically managed data from different coordinate systems, using coordinate transformation functions to uniformly map them to a global coordinate system consistent with the Building Information Model (BIM). For any data point, its unified coordinates are calculated using the formula: the coordinates of the data point in the original local coordinate system multiplied by a preset affine transformation matrix. This preset affine transformation matrix is ​​obtained using the least squares method, utilizing at least three (usually four or more to improve accuracy) common control points whose coordinates are known in both the global and specific local coordinate systems.

[0047] For example, when deploying base stations for a personnel positioning system, the precise coordinates of these base stations in the global coordinate system are measured simultaneously. The coordinates of these base stations in their own local coordinate systems are usually known, such as (0,0), (0,100), (100,0). Thus, each base station constitutes a common control point. By collecting at least three such pairs of corresponding points, the system can solve for the unique affine transformation matrix that transforms the entire personnel positioning network coordinate system to the global coordinate system. Affine transformation is used instead of simple translation and rotation because it can simultaneously handle translation, rotation, scaling, and shearing, better compensating for differences between different coordinate systems caused by measurement errors, projection distortions, etc., and ensuring transformation accuracy.

[0048] After data cleaning is complete, the system calls the transformation matrix pre-configured for the data source to transform the original coordinates of each data point in real time, generating new coordinates in the global coordinate system, and using these new coordinates as the basis for subsequent processing. After unification, the system determines whether the global coordinates of the data points are within the boundary of an independent work point, thereby realizing the spatial association between dynamic data and independent work points.

[0049] Under a unified global coordinate system, dynamic data and static work points are associated through spatial calculations. An algorithm for determining whether a point lies within a polygon (such as the ray casting method) is used. The system traverses the boundary polygon of each independent work point (obtained from the BIM model) and checks whether the unified data point coordinates lie within it. The spatial association between dynamic data and independent work points includes at least one of the following association logics: Personnel and Independent Work Site Association: When the unified personnel coordinates remain within the boundary of an independent work site for more than a preset time threshold, it is determined that the personnel has entered the independent work site.

[0050] The preset time threshold is typically determined based on the typical time it takes for a person to cross a work site boundary and the accuracy of the positioning system. For example, considering the potential for brief fluctuations in UWB positioning and the normal time it takes for a person to pass through a doorway or passageway, this threshold can be set to 10 to 30 seconds. The threshold setting can be optimized by statistically analyzing historical trajectory data and observing the distribution of time people spend at different area boundaries. This threshold effectively filters out accidental fluctuations in the positioning signal and momentary crossing behavior by personnel, ensuring the accuracy of the correlation and avoiding false alarms.

[0051] Equipment is associated with an independent work site: if the standardized coordinates of an equipment are within the boundary of an independent work site and the equipment is in an active state, then the equipment is determined to be working within that independent work site. This logic combines both spatial location and equipment status conditions, resulting in high accuracy. For example, an excavator in an idle state, even if parked within a work site, will not be counted as an active work resource for that work site.

[0052] Environmental and Independent Work Site Correlation: When environmental sensor data at a specific work site exceeds a preset standard threshold, an environmental violation event is determined to have occurred at that work site, and an early warning is generated. This preset standard threshold directly references mandatory national, local, or industry environmental protection standards. For example, according to the "Environmental Noise Emission Standard for Construction Site Boundaries" (GB 12523-2011), the noise limit for nighttime construction is 55 decibels; according to the "Construction Site Dust Emission Standard," the PM2.5 concentration limit may be 150 decibels. These standard values ​​are pre-set in the system's rule base as absolute benchmarks for judging whether a standard is exceeded. Using legally mandated standards as thresholds ensures that the system's warnings have legal basis and authority, guiding compliance management at construction sites.

[0053] This step effectively cleans, transforms, and correlates dynamic data with spatial information from different heterogeneous systems to a unified spatial management unit, providing a high-quality, semantically rich real-time data foundation for the next step of comprehensive status assessment.

[0054] Step 3: Using independent work sites as unified spatial and management units, integrate and correlate dynamic management data and static management information; based on preset rules, determine the overall execution status of each independent work site.

[0055] In this embodiment, determining the overall execution status of each independent work site specifically includes: A dynamic dataset is created for each independent work site, serving as the data foundation for all subsequent calculations and analyses. The creation process specifically includes: the system periodically (e.g., every minute) executes a spatial matching algorithm. This algorithm traverses all dynamic data points (personnel, equipment, environmental sensor coordinates) that have undergone the unification process in step 2, and uses an algorithm where points lie within polygons (such as the ray casting method) to determine which independent work site's boundary polygon each data point currently resides within. All dynamic data determined to be located within the same work site are aggregated into that work site's dynamic dataset. This process is real-time and automated.

[0056] The specific implementation of integration and association: Risk and Personnel Correlation: The system correlates the list of personnel IDs in the dynamic dataset with the risk spectrum of the work site in the static management information. For example, for a work site where high-altitude operations are underway, the risk spectrum predefines falls from height as a high-risk event. If the system detects that a person has entered the work site, it will automatically mark in the background logic that the person is exposed to the risk of falls from height. This correlation can be used for more granular safety monitoring, such as checking whether the person is wearing a safety belt (which can be determined through video AI or IoT devices).

[0057] Relationship between schedule and resources: The system obtains the planned and actual completed work volume for the independent work site from the API interface of the project management system (such as P6 or MS Project). Simultaneously, it associates the equipment and personnel currently at the independent work site to form a complete data table for analyzing schedule performance. This complete data table includes the equipment, personnel, planned progress, and actual progress for the independent work site. The data sources for the actual completed work volume may be diverse and require preprocessing. For example, pouring volume data from a concrete mixing plant system may need to be verified against the theoretical volume in the BIM model; project progress data from image recognition (such as the number of floors completed) needs to be converted into a unified unit of measurement. The system will have built-in necessary unit conversion and data standardization modules.

[0058] Linking Safety and Hazards: The system obtains reported safety hazard events at the work site in real time via API integration or manual input. Each event is marked as either unclosed or closed. The system automatically associates these unclosed events with the work site and uses their quantity and severity for safety status assessment. The definition of closed is strict and traceable. The system mandates a closed-loop process: reporting - assignment - rectification - review. Only when the reviewer (usually a safety officer or supervisor) confirms in the system that the hazard has been eliminated will the system automatically update the event status from unclosed to closed.

[0059] The comprehensive execution status is a comprehensive evaluation index composed of safety status, schedule status, and quality status, characterized by the calculation of its comprehensive execution status index. The specific calculation logic is as follows: For each independent work site, its safety status score is determined based on the comprehensive risk value of the work site's risk spectrum and the number of safety hazard events; its progress status score is determined based on the deviation between the actual progress and the planned progress of the independent work site; and its quality status score is determined based on the quality defect closure rate of the independent work site. For each reported safety hazard event, its status is marked as closed only if and only if the safety hazard event has been rectified and passed the review. The quality defect closure rate is the ratio of the number of closed safety hazard events found at the independent work site in the current construction phase to the total number of safety hazard events found in the current construction phase. The comprehensive execution status index of the independent work site is obtained by weighting and summing the safety status score, schedule status score and quality status score according to the preset importance coefficient. Expressed as a formula: ; in, This represents the overall execution status index of the i-th independent work site. This represents the safety status score of the i-th independent work site. This represents the progress status score of the i-th independent work site. This represents the quality status score of the i-th independent work site. These are the importance coefficients of the corresponding terms, and they satisfy... Importance coefficients reflect management's prioritization of safety, schedule, and quality. They are typically set using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) or directly by the highest decision-making level in project management. For example, they might be set at the beginning of a project or during periods of high accident risk. , , Safety is the top priority; however, during the rush to complete the project, this may be adjusted to... , , It emphasizes progress while ensuring safety. The configurability of the weights allows this evaluation model to adapt to specific management strategies for different projects and stages, rather than a rigid one-size-fits-all approach.

[0060] The preset rule is a level judgment rule. When the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is not lower than the first threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a normal state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the first threshold but not lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a warning state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in an abnormal state.

[0061] The first threshold marks the boundary between normal and warning conditions, while the second threshold marks the boundary between warning and abnormal conditions. These thresholds are typically set based on historical project data or industry experience. For example, a large number of normal work sites can be collected. The values ​​are calculated and their distribution is determined. The first threshold is set as the mean minus one standard deviation. Similarly, the second threshold is set by analyzing the data from the problem work points. A common initial setting could be: first threshold = 0.7, second threshold = 0.5. The threshold discretizes the continuous index values ​​into three intuitive levels: "normal," "warning," and "abnormal," making it easier for managers to quickly identify key areas of concern. Setting the thresholds based on historical data makes them more scientific and targeted.

[0062] The dependent variable of the Comprehensive Execution Status Index specifically reflects the overall execution health of the i-th independent work site across three dimensions: safety management, schedule control, and quality level. Essentially, it is a quantified comprehensive performance indicator. This index weights and integrates three sub-indicators—safety status score, schedule status score, and quality status score—each reflecting different management aspects, according to preset importance coefficients, ultimately forming a scalar value between 0 and 1. Its core meaning lies in condensing the complex and multifaceted management status of a work site into a single, intuitive, and horizontally comparable numerical value. A larger value indicates a healthier and more ideal overall operational status for the independent work site; a smaller value indicates a less healthy overall operational status and more serious problems. For example, a larger value may reflect lower inherent risks at the current construction stage, a high degree of alignment between actual project progress and plan, or a generally lower severity of various quality defects. A smaller value may reflect extremely high inherent risks, numerous on-site hazards, severe schedule delays, and significant gaps in progress compared to planned targets. Its technological effect is to overcome the limitations of traditional management that relies on scattered reports and subjective experience judgments, and to provide project managers with an objective data-driven tool that can quickly locate bottlenecks, identify high-risk work points, and prioritize the allocation of management resources.

[0063] Safety, schedule, and quality scores, as independent variables, together form the "iron triangle" of construction site management, representing the core and most interdependent key performance areas for assessing project execution. Safety is the fundamental prerequisite for production, schedule is the main objective of the project, and quality is the ultimate guarantee of results; all three are indispensable. The influence of independent variables on dependent variables is reflected through weighted summation, where preset importance coefficients quantify the different strategic emphases of management on these three dimensions. For example, when safety is given the highest weight (… When the overall performance index is at its highest value, the quality of the safety status has a decisive impact on the overall performance index. This guides on-site management behavior to automatically favor safety, ensuring consistency between management decisions and strategic goals. The overall performance index is positively correlated with all three independent variables; that is, an increase in the score of any one independent variable will drive the overall index to improve. Specifically, when the safety status score increases due to reduced risk or timely rectification of hidden dangers, or when the progress status score is high because the actual progress meets expectations, or when the quality status score improves due to efficient closure of defects and low severity of problems, these factors will directly boost the overall performance index through weighted calculation. Conversely, a deterioration in any independent variable leading to a decrease in its score will drag down the overall index. This design ensures the balance of the evaluation system, prevents serious shortcomings in project management, and any failure in any aspect will be immediately reflected in the overall index, thereby driving managers to take comprehensive corrective measures.

[0064] In this embodiment, the logic for calculating the security status score is as follows: The negative impact on safety status is characterized by the product of the number of unclosed safety hazard events in an independent work site and a preset safety penalty coefficient. The sum of this product, the comprehensive risk value of the independent work site, and 1 is calculated, and the reciprocal of the sum is designated as the safety status score of the independent work site. Expressed as a formula: ; in, Let i be the number of unclosed safety hazard events within the i-th independent work site. This is a safety penalty coefficient used to quantify the negative impact of unclosed safety hazard events on the safety status.

[0065] Used to quantify the negative impact of a single unclosed hazard on the safety status. Its value should be correlated with the overall risk value (…). The magnitudes match. For example, if The typical value is between 0 and 10, so set This means that there are two unresolved hidden dangers ( The negative impact on the safety status is approximately equal to a potential risk event with a risk value of 1. Regression analysis can be used to find the relationship between the number of unclosed hazards in historical data and the actual incidence of safety accidents, thus allowing for calibration. Value. The initial experience value can be set from 0.2 to 1.0.

[0066] The dependent variable of the safety status score specifically reflects the immediate level of safety risk faced by a particular independent work site at the current moment. Its meaning incorporates the inherent potential risks of that work site (derived from the comprehensive risk value). Characterization) and real hidden dangers that have been exposed but not yet resolved (based on the number of unclosed hidden dangers) The scoring system comprises two core elements: representation and analysis. Its key technological advantage lies in its quantitative fusion of abstract, predictive risks with concrete, past events, generating a normalized index between 0 and 1. A lower value indicates a more concerning safety situation, thus providing managers with a more forward-looking safety situation awareness tool that goes beyond simple incident statistics.

[0067] This formula uses the comprehensive risk value and the number of unclosed hazards as key independent variables because they define the safety status of a work site from two indispensable dimensions: potential likelihood and established fact, respectively. The comprehensive risk value, based on factors such as work site type and construction stage, pre-assesses the severity and probability of potential risks, forming the theoretical foundation of safety management. The number of unclosed hazards, on the other hand, dynamically records existing safety issues requiring immediate intervention, representing the practical focus of safety management. Together, they constitute a complete description of the work site's safety status; neglecting either will lead to inaccurate assessments. The formula constructs a mathematical model by summing both variables to a constant 1 and taking their reciprocals, transforming all negative factors into factors that collectively exert pressure on the score. The safety status score shows a significant negative correlation with both independent variables. Specifically, as the comprehensive risk value increases, or the number of unclosed safety hazards increases, the denominator of the formula increases, resulting in a decrease in the safety status score. This relationship design aligns with the most basic safety management logic: the higher the inherent potential risk of a work site, the weaker its safety foundation; simultaneously, the more hazards discovered but not rectified, the greater the loopholes in safety control, and naturally, the worse the current safety status. Therefore, the decline in scores directly alerts managers to the need to invest more attention and resources in this work site.

[0068] The specific logic for calculating the progress status score is as follows: The schedule deviation rate is calculated to determine the value of the schedule status score. The specific calculation logic is as follows: calculate the difference between the actual completed work volume of an independent work site and the planned completed work volume of that independent work site. The ratio of this difference to the planned completed work volume of that independent work site is the schedule deviation rate. Expressed as a formula: ; in, Let be the schedule deviation rate for the i-th independent work site. This represents the actual amount of work completed at the i-th independent work site. This represents the planned amount of work to be completed at the i-th work site; Indicates being ahead of its time. Indicates a delay.

[0069] Set a baseline maximum score (e.g., 1), a baseline low score (e.g., 0.2), and a tolerance range for the progress status score; the minimum value of the tolerance range is a preset lag tolerance rate (negative value), and the maximum value is the advance tolerance rate (positive value); when the progress deviation rate is within the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline maximum score, and when the progress deviation rate is outside the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline low score.

[0070] Lag tolerance is typically determined based on the float time of the process on the critical path. For example, if a non-critical process has a 5-day float time and a planned duration of 10 days, the lag tolerance can be set at -0.5 (i.e., 5 days lag / 10 days). Lead tolerance, on the other hand, needs to consider whether the preparation work for subsequent processes is ready, avoiding premature completion that could lead to site congestion or insufficient maintenance; it might be set at +0.1. Using a dichotomous approach instead of a linear scoring method provides a clear, black-and-white objective for schedule management. As long as the process is within the tolerance range, full marks are awarded; once it exceeds the tolerance range, regardless of the extent of the exceedance, a lower penalty score is given to draw serious attention.

[0071] The logic for calculating the quality status score is as follows: Each safety hazard reported at the independent work site is quantified and assigned a value according to its severity level, so as to calculate the sum of the safety hazard values ​​after quantification of all safety hazard events; calculate the highest estimated total severity value, that is, assuming that all safety hazard events are of the highest severity level, the product of the total number of safety hazard events and the value assigned to the highest severity level is the highest total hazard value.

[0072] Severity rating: A quantitative rating system is used from Level 1 (minor) to Level 3 (serious). For example: Level 1 (minor): 1 for localized hygiene non-compliance; Level 2 (moderate): 2 for some rebar spacing exceeding the standard; Level 3 (serious): 3 for errors in the dimensions of major components. This standard must be clearly defined in advance in the project's quality management system.

[0073] Calculate the ratio of the total value of safety hazards to the total value of the highest hazard, and use the difference between 1 and this ratio to characterize the severity penalty factor.

[0074] The quality status score for each independent work site is the product of the quality defect closure rate and the severity penalty factor for that independent work site.

[0075] Expressed as a formula: ; in, Let be the quality defect closure rate of the i-th independent work site. This represents the severity level of the k-th safety hazard event, quantified using levels 1 (minor) to 3 (serious). That is, the sum of safety hazard values; The highest value indicates the severity level. This indicates the total number of safety hazard incidents. That is, the maximum total value of potential hazards; k is the index of potential safety hazard events. The next item represents the severity penalty factor. This factor's value decreases as the sum of the severity of all identified hazards increases, thus imposing a greater penalty on the quality score.

[0076] For example, both work site A and work site B have 10 potential hazards, and the closure rate is 50% for both. However, the hazards at work site A are all level 1, while the hazards at work site B are all level 3. The penalty factor for work point A is 1 - 10 / (10*3) = 0.667; the quality defect closure rate for work point A is 0.5 * 0.667 = 0.3335. The penalty factor for work point B is 1 - 30 / (10*3) = 0, therefore the quality defect closure rate for work point B is 0. This design ensures that the quality score focuses not only on the quantity of rectification (closure rate) but also on the severity of the problems themselves. Even if rectification is quick, if the problems are all serious, the quality score will still be very low, which aligns with the core principles of quality management.

[0077] The quality status score, as a dependent variable, comprehensively reflects the efficiency and effectiveness of a specific independent work site in rectifying quality issues. Its meaning goes beyond simply focusing on the number of problems discovered; it assesses the thoroughness of the resolution of these problems and the severity of the problems themselves. This value is a standardized indicator between 0 and 1. A higher value indicates that the work site not only efficiently closes identified quality defects but also faces a lower overall severity of quality problems, suggesting that its quality management system is functioning well and is in a healthy state. Conversely, a lower value implies either ineffective rectification, the existence of a large number of high-severity quality problems, or both, indicating a red flag for quality management. Its core technical advantage lies in overcoming the potential misleading effect of simply using the defect closure rate. It prevents a work site from achieving a high score by quickly closing a large number of minor problems while ignoring a few serious ones, thus guiding managers to focus on both the quantity and quality of rectification. The formula uses the quality defect closure rate and the severity penalty factor (the part in parentheses in the formula) as core independent variables because they define the quality status from two complementary and crucial dimensions: rectification speed and problem severity. The quality defect closure rate represents the efficiency of corrective actions and is a direct reflection of the execution of quality management processes; while the severity penalty factor introduces consideration of the nature of the problem itself, which is calculated by taking into account the average severity of all discovered defects. ) and its worst possible scenario ( The ratio of the quality status score to the minor quality defect closure rate is used to assess the severity of the current quality problem. Multiplying these two independent variables means that the final quality score of a work site must be achieved by both efficient rectification and minor problem nature; the absence of either will lead to a significant decrease in the score. In terms of correlation, the quality status score and the quality defect closure rate have a clear positive correlation. When the closure rate... When improving, The linear growth at the same rate directly reflects the positive impact of improved rectification efficiency on quality. However, It exhibits a complex negative correlation with the sum of the severity of all defects (∑S_k) and the total number of defects (N_total,i). Specifically, when the total number of defects ( The numerator remains unchanged, but the number of serious defects increases (leading to the numerator term) When the value of the severity penalty factor (in parentheses) increases, the value decreases, thus pulling down the final penalty factor. Score. Similarly, even if the average severity remains the same, the total number of defects ( The increase in ) itself will also reduce the closure rate. Together with the influencing penalty factor, it leads to This design ensures that the system imposes severe penalties on work sites with a high number of problems, especially serious ones, forcing managers to prioritize and prevent high-severity quality risks.

[0078] Step 4: Generate visualized independent work point execution status information. In the visualized independent work point execution status information, each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution status, and the static management information and dynamic management data associated with the independent work point are displayed centrally.

[0079] In this embodiment, generating the visualized independent work point execution status information specifically includes: Visual interfaces are typically developed based on WebGL technology or game engines (such as Unity and Unreal) to achieve high-performance rendering and interaction in 3D scenes. Basic scene rendering involves the system first loading the Building Information Model (BIM) as the base of the visual scene, and then rendering the boundary polygons of the independent work points and integrated work points divided in step 1 as a semi-transparent overlay on the corresponding spatial locations of the BIM model.

[0080] On the visualization interface, a dynamic visual code is assigned to the boundary area of ​​each independent work point. This dynamic visual code includes at least color coding and animation coding. The color coding is based on the comprehensive execution status index value of the independent work point, mapped to a continuous color spectrum for filling. Areas where the independent work point is judged to be in a normal state are filled with green, areas where it is judged to be in a warning state are filled with yellow, and areas where it is judged to be in an abnormal state are filled with red. To more intuitively express the status level, the system sets clear color ranges: Normal state (green): It falls between the first threshold and 1; Warning status (yellow): It falls between the second threshold and the first threshold; Abnormal status (red): It falls between 0 and the second threshold.

[0081] The use of red-yellow-green color semantics conforms to international standards, making state recognition highly intuitive and requiring no training to understand. Continuous spectrum provides more subtle cues within the same state level.

[0082] The animation is implemented using CSS3 animations, SVG animations, or a particle system from a game engine. When an individual work point is determined to be in an abnormal state, the system triggers a preset animation script, causing its boundary line or the entire filled area to flash alternately between dark red and bright red at a certain frequency (e.g., once per second). The animation triggering is automatic, based on the periodic judgment result in step 3. Once the work point status changes from "warning" or "normal" to "abnormal," the flashing immediately begins. Similarly, when the status returns to "warning" or "normal," the flashing animation immediately stops. The animation, especially the flashing, strongly attracts visual attention, ensuring that abnormal work points can be detected immediately in the complex panoramic view of the construction site, meeting the requirements for rapid response to major risks in safety management.

[0083] The execution status information refers to the information panel that is triggered and displayed when an individual work site is clicked. This information panel is an integrated data dashboard that provides managers with a panoramic view of the work site through drill-down interaction. The information panel includes: identity block, status block, responsibility block, risk block, and resource block. The identity block includes the site number and the current construction stage; the current construction stage is automatically determined by comparing the actual progress with the project master schedule. The system maintains a construction stage pipeline for a site, and when the actual completion reaches the planned threshold for a certain stage (e.g., 95%), the status is automatically updated to the next stage.

[0084] The status block includes the safety status score, progress status score, quality status score, and overall execution status index for that individual work site; displayed in the form of numbers, progress bars, or radar charts. In addition to displaying absolute values, the system will also use different colors to render the background of the score numbers, or use the length of a horizontal progress bar to visually reflect the position of the score within the defined status interval.

[0085] The responsibility block is the grid responsibility matrix in static management information; next to each person in charge's name, there is usually a one-click communication icon (such as a telephone, message symbol, or personnel-related code). Clicking it can directly trigger preset communication actions (such as making a phone call, sending a text message, or starting an enterprise IM chat), which greatly improves the efficiency of problem communication.

[0086] Risk blocks are the risk events and their corresponding risk values ​​in the work site risk spectrum of static management information; they are displayed in list form. The list is usually sorted in descending order of risk value and the risk values ​​are color-coded (e.g., high risk red, medium risk yellow, low risk green) so that managers can quickly focus on the most important risks.

[0087] The resource block includes personnel dynamic data and equipment dynamic data. The system extracts unique personnel IDs and unique equipment IDs in real time from the dynamic data set of the work site. Then, by querying the preset employee information database and equipment information database, the IDs are parsed into readable names and types (e.g., Personnel: Zhang San; Team: Steelworker; Equipment: Excavator - No. 052). To prevent display instability caused by data jitter, the system smooths the presence status of personnel / equipment. For example, if a person's coordinates are within the work site for more than 60% of the data points in the last two refresh cycles (i.e., within 10 minutes), then the person is considered present and displayed.

[0088] The dynamic visual encoding of individual work points and all data in the information panel of the visualization interface are dynamically refreshed at a fixed interval of no more than 5 minutes. Simultaneously, data in the information panel of each individual work point is recorded over time to form time-series data, allowing for the retrospective analysis of all data for that individual work point at any historical point in time. The 5-minute interval is a compromise between real-time requirements and system performance load. For information with relatively slow changes, such as progress and resources, a 5-minute refresh rate is sufficient. For urgent information such as safety warnings, the system has a dedicated message push channel, enabling second-level response without being limited by a fixed interval. Too short a refresh interval (e.g., 10 seconds) will place unnecessary burden on the server and network and may lead to frequent interface changes, interfering with user observation. Too long an interval (e.g., 30 minutes) will cause information lag, negating the purpose of real-time monitoring. 5 minutes is an industry-recognized reasonable interval suitable for operational monitoring.

[0089] This embodiment also implements a history rewind function: During each periodic refresh, the system not only updates the current view, but also writes all the data (including snapshot timestamps) in each individual work site information panel as a complete data record into a dedicated time series database.

[0090] The system provides a timeline or calendar control on the visual interface. After the user selects a historical point in time, the system queries the time-series database, requesting snapshot data of the status of all work sites at that point in time, and then re-renders the entire scene, including the color coding and information panel content at that time. The value of this feature lies in incident review, progress comparison, and performance evaluation. For example, when a quality problem occurs at a work site, the system can trace back to the period before the problem occurred to view the resource allocation and risk warnings at that time, providing data support for analyzing the root cause.

[0091] Please see Figure 2 The present invention also provides a construction information management system, which is used to implement the above-mentioned construction information management method, comprising: The work site gridding and static data processing module is used to divide the construction site into multiple management work sites based on project planning data and building information model, and associate each management work site with its corresponding static management information; the management work sites include at least independent work sites; A multi-source heterogeneous data fusion access module is used to receive dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems in real time, wherein the dynamic management data includes at least spatial location information. The work site status diagnosis and assessment module is used to integrate and correlate dynamic management data and static management information, taking independent work sites as unified spatial and management units; and to judge the overall execution status of each independent work site based on preset rules. The visualization module is used to generate visualized independent work point execution status information. In the visualized independent work point execution status information, each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution status, and relevant data from static management information and dynamic management data of the independent work point are displayed centrally.

[0092] The above formulas are all dimensionless calculations. The formulas are derived from software simulations based on a large amount of collected data to obtain the most recent real-world results. The preset parameters in the formulas are set by those skilled in the art according to the actual situation.

[0093] The above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, by software, hardware, firmware, or any other combination thereof. When implemented in software, the above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, as a computer program product. Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented by electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution.

[0094] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment, depending on actual needs.

[0095] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application.

Claims

1. A construction information management method, characterized in that, The specific steps include: Step 1: Based on project planning data and building information model, divide the construction site into multiple management work points, and associate each management work point with its corresponding static management information; the management work points include at least independent work points; Step 2: Receive dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems in real time, wherein the dynamic management data includes at least spatial location information; Step 3: Using independent work sites as unified spatial and management units, integrate and correlate dynamic management data and static management information; based on preset rules, determine the overall execution status of each independent work site; Step 4: Generate visualized independent work point execution status information. In the visualized independent work point execution status information, each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution status, and the static management information and dynamic management data associated with the independent work point are displayed centrally.

2. The construction information management method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The division into multiple management work points specifically includes: The management work sites include independent work sites and integrated work sites; based on the spatial structural units in the building information model and the construction flow section division scheme in the project planning data, areas with independent construction procedures and independent management responsibility boundaries are identified as independent work sites; areas that provide public services to independent work sites, or areas that do not have independent construction procedures themselves, are identified as integrated work sites; The independent work sites include at least one of the following types: linearly distributed work sites, regionally distributed work sites, critical facility work sites, and auxiliary area work sites; The criteria for determining an independent construction procedure are: the construction activities at the independent work site are treated as an independent work plan unit in the project schedule, have clear procedure handover nodes, and the allocation and scheduling of its construction resources are independent of other areas. The criteria for determining the independent management responsibility boundary are: the independent work site has clearly designated a single person in charge of safety, quality, and schedule in the responsibility matrix of the project management organization; One independent work site corresponds to one construction task unit, and the construction task unit includes at least the foundation pit support section, the main structure pouring section, and the pipeline installation corridor. The integrated work site corresponds to a public service or auxiliary operation unit, which includes at least a centralized concrete mixing plant, a temporary power distribution center, and a main construction access road; The static management information includes at least a grid responsibility matrix, a work site risk spectrum, and a list of key quality control points, and the static management information is associated with each independent work site. The grid responsibility matrix includes the design, construction, supervision, and safety managers of the independent work sites associated with it. The list of key quality control points includes the key procedures and indicators that must be checked and accepted during the construction process of the independent work sites associated with it. The work site risk spectrum is a predefined quantitative risk list based on the construction technology, geological conditions, and surrounding environment of the independent work sites associated with it. The work site risk spectrum quantifies risk by calculating the comprehensive risk value of the independent work sites. The specific logic is as follows: all preset risk events are analyzed to determine the severity level and global weight of each risk event after it occurs, and the probability of each risk event occurring at each independent work site in the current construction stage is determined according to the expert scoring method; the product of the probability of each risk event, the severity level, and the global weight is calculated to represent the risk value of the corresponding risk event; the risk values ​​of all risk events occurring at each independent work site in the current construction stage are statistically analyzed, and their sum is taken as the comprehensive risk value of the independent work site in the current construction stage. The risk spectrum of the work site is dynamic, and its comprehensive risk value changes with the construction stage of the independent work site. For all independent work sites, a corresponding risk spectrum is predefined for different construction stages and is associated with the construction simulation progress of the independent work site in the building information model. When the actual progress of the independent work site enters the corresponding construction stage, the risk spectrum of the work site corresponding to the construction stage is automatically activated.

3. The construction information management method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The dynamic management data also includes at least personnel dynamic data, equipment dynamic data, environmental dynamic data, and video dynamic data; The heterogeneous external information system includes a personnel positioning system, an equipment monitoring system, an environmental monitoring system, and a video surveillance system; The spatial location information in the dynamic management data is specifically embodied in at least one of the following data: the personnel dynamic data comes from the personnel positioning system, and the data includes at least a unique personnel ID, real-time three-dimensional coordinates, and a timestamp; the equipment dynamic data comes from the equipment monitoring system, and the data includes at least a unique equipment ID, equipment status, real-time three-dimensional coordinates, and a timestamp, wherein the equipment status includes running, idle, and faulty; the environmental dynamic data comes from the environmental monitoring system, and the data includes at least dust concentration, noise decibel value, timestamp, and sensor location coordinates; the video dynamic data comes from the video surveillance system, and the data is the real-time video stream URL address of the specified monitoring point and its spatial coverage coordinates. After accessing the dynamic management data, spatial location unification processing is performed, specifically including: mapping the dynamic management data from different coordinate systems to a global coordinate system consistent with the building information model through a coordinate transformation function; For any data point, its unified coordinates are obtained by multiplying the coordinates of the data point in the original local coordinate system with a preset affine transformation matrix; the preset affine transformation matrix is ​​calculated by at least three common control points whose coordinates are known in the global coordinate system and the local coordinate system; after unification, the spatial association between dynamic data and independent work points is realized by determining whether the global coordinates of the data point are within the boundary of an independent work point. The spatial association between dynamic data and independent work sites includes at least one of the following association logics: Personnel and Independent Work Site Association: If the unified personnel coordinates remain within the boundary of an independent work site for more than a preset time threshold, it is determined that the personnel has entered the independent work site. Associating equipment with independent work sites: When the unified coordinates of an equipment are located within the boundary of an independent work site and the equipment status is running, it is determined that the equipment is working within that independent work site. Environment and independent work site association: When the environmental sensor data in an independent work site exceeds the preset standard threshold, it is determined that an environmental exceedance event has occurred at that independent work site, and an early warning is generated.

4. The construction information management method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The assessment of the overall execution status of each independent work site specifically includes: A dynamic dataset is created for each independent work site. This dynamic dataset aggregates all dynamic management data located within its boundaries using a spatial matching algorithm. The integration and association include at least one of the following: Risk and personnel correlation: The dynamic data of personnel entering the independent work site is correlated with the predefined risk events in the risk spectrum of the independent work site; Correlation between schedule and resources: The actual progress of the independent work site is obtained and compared with the planned progress of the independent work site. The equipment and personnel currently in the independent work site are also associated to form a complete data table for analyzing schedule performance. The complete data table includes the equipment, personnel, planned progress and actual progress of the independent work site. Correlation between safety and hidden dangers: Real-time access and correlation of unclosed safety hazard events reported within the independent work site, and use them to assess the safety status of the independent work site; The comprehensive execution status is a comprehensive evaluation index composed of safety status, schedule status, and quality status, which is characterized by calculating its comprehensive execution status index. The specific calculation logic is as follows: For each independent work site, its safety status score is determined based on the comprehensive risk value of the work site's risk spectrum and the number of safety hazard events; its progress status score is determined based on the deviation between the actual progress and the planned progress of the independent work site; and its quality status score is determined based on the quality defect closure rate of the independent work site. For each reported safety hazard event, its status is marked as closed only if and only if the safety hazard event has been rectified and passed the review. The quality defect closure rate is the ratio of the number of closed safety hazard events found at the independent work site in the current construction phase to the total number of safety hazard events found in the current construction phase. The comprehensive execution status index of the independent work site is obtained by weighting and summing the safety status score, schedule status score and quality status score according to the preset importance coefficient. The preset rule is a level judgment rule. When the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is not lower than the first threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a normal state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the first threshold but not lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in a warning state; when the comprehensive execution status index of an independent work point is lower than the second threshold, the independent work point is judged to be in an abnormal state.

5. The construction information management method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The logic for calculating the safety status score is as follows: The negative impact on safety status is characterized by the product of the number of unclosed safety hazard events in an independent work site and a preset safety penalty coefficient. The sum of this product, the comprehensive risk value of the independent work site, and 1 is calculated, and the reciprocal of the sum is designated as the safety status score of the independent work site. The specific logic for calculating the progress status score is as follows: The schedule deviation rate is calculated to determine the value of the schedule status score. The specific calculation logic is as follows: calculate the difference between the actual completed work volume of an independent work site and the planned completed work volume of that independent work site. The ratio of this difference to the planned completed work volume of that independent work site is the schedule deviation rate. Expressed as a formula: ； in, Let be the schedule deviation rate for the i-th independent work site. This represents the actual amount of work completed at the i-th independent work site. This represents the planned amount of work to be completed at the i-th work site; A baseline full score, a baseline low score, and a tolerance range are set for the progress status score; the minimum value of the tolerance range is a preset lag tolerance rate, and the maximum value is an advance tolerance rate; when the progress deviation rate is within the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline full score, and when the progress deviation rate is outside the tolerance range, the progress status score is assigned the baseline low score. The logic for calculating the quality status score is as follows: Each safety hazard reported at the independent work site is quantified and assigned a value according to its severity level, so as to calculate the sum of the safety hazard values ​​after quantification of all safety hazard events; calculate the highest estimated total severity value, that is, assuming that all safety hazard events are of the highest severity level, the product of the total number of safety hazard events and the value assigned to the highest severity level is the highest total hazard value; Calculate the ratio of the sum of safety hazard values ​​to the highest total hazard value, and use the difference between 1 and this ratio to characterize the severity penalty factor; The quality status score for each independent work site is the product of the quality defect closure rate and the severity penalty factor for that independent work site.

6. The construction information management method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Generating the visualized independent work point execution status information specifically includes: On the visualization interface, a dynamic visual code is assigned to the boundary area of ​​each independent work point; the dynamic visual code includes at least color code and animation code; the color code is based on the comprehensive execution status index value of the independent work point, mapped to a continuous color spectrum for filling, the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in a normal state is filled with green, the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in a warning state is filled with yellow, and the area of ​​the independent work point judged to be in an abnormal state is filled with red; the animation code adopts the form of red flashing animation, which is triggered when the independent work point is judged to be in an abnormal state; The execution status information refers to the information panel that is triggered and displayed when an independent work point is clicked. This information panel includes: identity block, status block, responsibility block, risk block, and resource block. The identity block includes the site number and the current construction phase; The status block includes the safety status score, schedule status score, quality status score, and overall execution status index for that individual work site; The responsibility block is the grid responsibility matrix in static management information; Risk blocks are the risk events and their corresponding risk values ​​in the risk spectrum of work sites in static management information; The resource blocks include personnel dynamic data and equipment dynamic data; The dynamic visual encoding of independent work sites and all data in the information panel of the visualization interface are dynamically refreshed at a fixed cycle of no more than 5 minutes; at the same time, the data in the information panel of each independent work site is recorded by time to form time series data, so as to trace back all data of the independent work site at any point in history.

7. A construction information management system, characterized in that, The construction information management system is used to implement the construction information management method according to any one of claims 1-6, including: The work site gridding and static data processing module is used to divide the construction site into multiple management work sites based on project planning data and building information model, and associate each management work site with its corresponding static management information; the management work sites include at least independent work sites; A multi-source heterogeneous data fusion access module is used to receive dynamic management data from multiple heterogeneous external information systems in real time, wherein the dynamic management data includes at least spatial location information. The work site status diagnosis and assessment module is used to integrate and correlate dynamic management data and static management information, taking independent work sites as unified spatial and management units; and to judge the overall execution status of each independent work site based on preset rules. The visualization module is used to generate visualized independent work point execution status information. In the visualized independent work point execution status information, each independent work point is characterized by its judged comprehensive execution status, and relevant data from static management information and dynamic management data of the independent work point are displayed centrally.

Images